Good Flock/Bad Flock, Are These Cameras Unconstitutional? More Bad Cops! 1A All-The-Way!
The short version: A First Amendment auditor from Kinetic Audits films Flock ALPR cameras and police reactions, raising the question of whether these networks are even constitutional.
Our Take
Kinetic Audits does what a lot of local reporters won't: point a camera at the cameras and ask the obvious question out loud — is any of this actually legal? Whether or not every officer in the clip handled the encounter well, the underlying tension is real. Flock's ALPR network was sold to city councils as a narrow tool for recovering stolen cars, but it's quietly become a warrantless, always-on tracking grid that logs where everyone drives, parks, and lives their daily life. Auditors filming in public are doing the unglamorous work of testing how far that system has crept, and how jumpy it makes the people running it.
"Good Flock/Bad Flock" is a fair framing. Not every department deploys these cameras the same way, and not every cop reacts the same way to a lens pointed back at them. But the Fourth Amendment doesn't bend based on an officer's mood that day, and a patchwork of good intentions doesn't change the fact that millions of plate scans are being stored, shared, and in some cases sold access to, with almost no public oversight. Videos like this force a conversation that city council meetings keep trying to avoid.
Credit to Kinetic Audits for getting boots on the ground and cameras rolling. If you want to see how dense this surveillance net is where you live, check our camera map, and if you're ready to push back on your local council, our take-action page has the tools to start.
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of Kinetic Audits, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.